Convergence: The final frontier?

Early in the conclusion, page 257, Jenkins asks what is meant to be a relatively simple question: "Have I gone too far? Am I granting too much power here to these consumption communities?" He gives a simple-sounding answer: "Perhaps." Except "perhaps" is hardly a simple answer to a question like this. What it makes me think he's really saying is "I don't really think so" or "We'll see...".
Well, as soon as I read that, I thought to myself: Hmm... Maybe we can answer this.

We've seen since the beginning of the book that 2007 was, believe it or not, sort of a long time ago. Jenkins calls himself an "early adapter" and mentions that his pile of black boxes includes a VCR, separate from his DVD player (rather than a Playstation 3 with blu-ray, combination VCR/DVD player, XBOX 360, iPhone...). He mentions that people have been relatively skeptical about texting, and today my grandma has learned to text (she actually just got unlimited texting) so that she can have an easy way to communicate with her grandchildren. And she's been telling her friends that it's a brilliant idea! Come to think of it, my grandma's a good example for another reason: She's an avid The Bachelor fan, and she reads the forums for the show online. I watch it so that we have a reason to chat every week or so, and for the past three or four seasons, she's ruined the ending for me by telling me what the forums say will happen. She's a rewinder and rewatcher, too. As far as I know, she doesn't contribute, yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if she started at some point.

So what does all this, and my little rant about Gma, have to do with convergence culture? Three years ago, Jenkins was right. His DVD player was cool, texting was something the cool kids did that people over the age of 40 didn't really understand, lots fewer people had Twitter, Facebook, and on and on.
But the question remains: Is he giving "consumption communities" too much power?
He says "Perhaps." I say "No."
Maybe that seems a little bold, but I'll explain.

I think Jenkins is right to say that this participatory culture is powerful.
These days, big media corporations aren't completely crumbling, but they're having to work to find ways to keep their audiences. Just today, I was watching CNN and was given the opportunity to text in my vote on the story, of three news stories, that they'd show later on in the hour. Now, we're not just demanding that we have access to all the news through the web, but we expect television news to respond to our demands. People on Twitter ranted Saturday that news stations were covering the Super Bowl when they could have been getting that news on ESPN. In a way, our participation forces outlets to be at once more general and more specific than ever before.

Speaking of Twitter, that's where I get most of my news. I read the updates of BreakingNews, CNN, Time, BBCNews, etc, and I usually feel like I'm generally well informed. In fact sometimes, I'm one of the first to know certain bits of the news. I can also be one of the first to comment on a given news story if I happen to pick up on it in time.
Not only can I get my news and share the news and comment on the news on Twitter, but I can contact the people who write the stories, are famous for commenting on the news, and those whom the news references.
John Cornyn, a U.S. Senator from Texas often tweets and replies to tweets. Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, pretty much every CNN anchor, the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post all have Twitter accounts. Some celebrities, politicians, and pundits are known for saying TOO MUCH on their Twitter pages. And they're not kidding around about caring what you say, either. I've had a few interesting interactions with people on twitter, but a recent example:
I got an email from a politician I support (because I'm on his email list) saying to please RT his most recent tweet or to link his facebook page and put the tweet in my own words. I was about to go to my first class of the day, so I decided I'd do it later. When I got out of class, I had a text from a guy who's working as social media director for the campaign asking me to RT or paraphrase the tweet. Now, I thought about three of my friends actually cared (or pretended to care) about my Twitter, but apparently this guy had noticed that my tweets are often political and asked me for help. Friday, I woke up to find that I had been mentioned in this politician's list of "Follow Friday" Twitter pages. While he makes a lot of his own updates, I have a feeling that the media director guy included me in that tweet. Still, I felt I had come full circle. I'd been commenting on the news and the politics/politicians I observed. I'd been noticed, to a degree, and was encouraged to participate. I had a debate about this politician with a friend on Twitter because he disagreed. And finally, the politician responded to me by showing his appreciation that I helped him out.

I rambled again. But all of this is to say that I think we are democratizing the media, bit by bit, and that we're making opportunities for better political culture, as well. When information about what is happening in Washington or in the Capitol in Austin, or in Tahrir Square in Egypt is nearly instantly available to my black box of choice, day or night, politicians and higher-ups of that nature are forced to be responsive and accountable.